!May 12, 2016
!!
Mr. Ron Davis

BURBANK POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION

Burbank City Manager
Burbank, CA 91502

!Subject: BPOA Response / BPD Email Audit System and Email Exchanges
!!
Mr. Davis,
!Thank you for providing The Burbank Police Officers’ Association with a copy of the above ref-

erenced memorandum. We appreciate your willingness to work with our Association to address
the issue concerning the emails received and forwarded by our former Deputy Chief (as recently
published in the Los Angeles Times).

!Obviously, this negative media attention has an effect on our members who have daily direct

contact with our community. We believe that you, the community, and all police employees deserve to have the relevant facts concerning the actions of our our former Deputy Chief. We
want to ensure that his violations of policy were properly addressed, and that our department’s
dedication to “transparency, and accountability through internal and external oversight” is
something our members and our community can count on.

!ANALYSIS:
!We have the following concerns related to the information provided.
! 1. It appears this memorandum attempts to minimize the former Deputy Chief’s Anti-Dis-

crimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Policy (AP-II-45) violations amongst a discussion over the implementation of annual email audits for compliance with the policies
concerning emails and electronic communication.

!We agree that there is an annual email audit process that results in an annual Daily Bulletin no-

tification. We agree this is a good practice. We would also agree that minor violations, such as
those examples given in the memorandum (forwarding a family photo), would be appropriately
handled through a verbal counseling session.

!Based on the “PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST TIMELINE” provided with the memoran-

dum, these department-wide notifications were in place and published as an annual practice
before the former Deputy Chief’s emails were discovered. Additionally, it appears the former
Deputy Chief ignored these annual notifications and continued to forward offensive, discriminatory emails. We also wanted to note that these actions occurred while overseeing reforms
which “were dedicated to reinforcing a culture which emphasized the duty to preserve and uphold the rights of all persons, a commitment towards teamwork and fairness, and one which
embraced change, transparency, and accountability through internal and external oversight.”

!

2. It appears (as no mention is made to the contrary) that discriminatory offenses were not
reported to the Management Services Director, per policy, nor to The Office of Independent Review Group (OIR Group), in support of the Department’s commitment to “transparency, and accountability through internal and external oversight.”

1 of 4

 !We are concerned that there is no mention of The Management Services Director being notified,
or becoming involved in this investigation, nor any documentation of any investigation being
conducted by the city. The policy clearly dictates the process to investigate a possible violation.
The former Deputy Chief’s emails clearly fall within the policy’s definition and example of a “Visual” discriminatory/harassing act. The policy states the conduct need not be directed at any one
individual and applies to acts toward employees and/or the public. No individual needs to
protest the act for it to be a violation. The fact an attorney made a public records request implies someone may have been offended and possibly in fear of retaliation for reporting.

!The Office of Independent Review (OIR Group) was contracted by the City of Burbank to con-

duct regular audits of the Burbank Police Department, focusing on internal affairs investigations
and uses of force. OIR Group's audits are intended to assess the quality and objectivity of the
internal investigations and the effectiveness of the internal review process. OIR Group presents
its evaluation of these processes in a public report that is presented to City Council and the Police Commission.

!The most recent report was issued in July 2015 and covers the period in which The former

Deputy Chief’s emails were discovered. The report indicates it reviewed 54 Internal Affairs Investigations and citizen complaints. There is mention of a complaint as minor as the use of
chewing tobacco by an officer, but no mention of the offensive emails. The OIR conclusion includes the statement, “The Department’s executives have brought their own experience and expertise to their new roles, but their commitment to professionalism and high standards is increasingly reflected at all ranks. We see it in the growing sophistication of the BPD internal review protocols, and the steady improvements in the timeliness and thoughtfulness of investigations. The accountability is real.”

!By not including the information regarding the emails, and any subsequent audit, we believe this

report (paid for by tax payers) is incomplete. Actions by the administration have been omitted,
and/or were not supplied to OIR by Chief LaChasse. Michael Genacco, Chief Attorney, Office of
Independent Review, informed the Los Angeles Times and the BPOA that he was not made
aware of the subject emails.

! 3. We have concern over the motive behind the review of employee emails conducted after
the PRA request.
!According
to the memorandum, once the Department learned of the derogatory emails, “a total

of 5,187 emails were individually reviewed based on a 30-word identifier. Of the 5,187 emails,
five were deemed inappropriate and attributed to the former Deputy Chief. Comments previously made by the Police Chief indicated the problem was rampant, yet this review found all five
were attributed to the former Deputy Chief. Furthermore, per the memorandum, audits were
conducted in 2012 and 2013 (before the subject emails were discovered). During these audits,
a total of 9 employees (sworn and civilian) were found to have received and forwarded inappropriate emails, in violation of department policy. While not excused in any way, 9 individuals out
of over 250 sworn and civilian employees would not lead one to believe the problem was systemic or rampant.

!There is already an annual audit of employee emails that does not include the administration.

Was this additional review for employees not included in the annual audit
(administration)? If the additional review did not include any audit of our administration, why
were they not included? Prior to 2009, regular audits were conducted of all ranks by our Internal Affairs Bureau. Why was this practice changed by our administration?

!

2 of 4

 4. The email audit explanation supports our concern the department and city policies do
not apply to the administration.

!The memorandum states email “audits were specific to the rank of Police Officer, Detectives

and non-sworn employees.” The Department did not reveal a plan to include higher ranks in the
audit process until after the former Deputy Chief’s emails were made public by The Los Angeles
Times. Why was this plan not recommended when the emails were originally discovered in
2014?

! 5. The discipline, or lack thereof, is imposed based on rank and/or reputation.
!Under “Department Actions,” the memorandum states “Consistent with other Department em-

ployees who committed similar policy violations”, the former Deputy Chief “received a verbal
warning by Chief LaChasse in April 2014.” Does the Chief consider the former Deputy Chief’s
offensive/discriminatory emails similar to forwarding a non-work related (family) photo? Should
the former Deputy Chief be held to a higher degree of expectation/standard than the officers
and detectives found to be in violation, even if the violation was similar? During the time the
subject emails were sent, there was a significant Internal Affairs investigation involving similar
policy violations in the Communications Center that resulted in discipline, including multiple
days off and a demotion. The former Deputy Chief was responsible to oversee this investigation
and he was also responsible for the administration of discipline.

!The City’s policy states the consequences should be “commensurate with the severity of the

offense.” Yet the Chief’s rationale for providing a verbal counseling session to the former Deputy
Chief was due to his 40-plus years of exceptional service in law enforcement. We agree past
behavior should be considered in the level of discipline to be issued, but that does not outweigh
the severity of the offense(s). We would also expect that a Deputy Chief with “40-plus years of
exceptional service” would not participate in such derogatory acts. It should be noted that many
of the Communications Center employees previously mentioned had been employed by the Police Department far longer than the former Deputy Chief at the time they received their discipline. Is there any documentation to support that a “verbal warning” was given to the former
Deputy Chief?

!The fact the former Deputy Chief sent the emails while he was involved in a “commitment to di-

versity in hiring”, “his ongoing interaction with a diverse community”, and his “expansion of the
community academies to include the hearing impaired, the Spanish and Armenian speaking
population” is appalling. The memorandum makes it appear that the “positive impact on diversity” achieved by the former Deputy Chief outweighs his misconduct.

!The City’s policy states that acts in violation of The Anti-Discrimination Policy “will not be tolerated. Disciplinary action or other appropriate sanctions, up to and including termination, will be
instituted for prohibited behavior…”

! 6. The BPOA finds it remarkable the subject emails were not initially handed over to the
media (Leader/Times) when lawfully requested pursuant to a public records request.
!A follow-up
request was made by the media before the documents were released. Taken alone,
this could be seen as an oversight. However, when collectively scrutinized with all the other actions, one can come to the conclusion that failing to initially release the emails appears to be
more than a simple oversight.

!!
!

3 of 4

 CONCLUSION:

!We believe the actions of our former Deputy Chief failed to support the mission of the Burbank

Police Department. Chief LaChasse handpicked the former Deputy Chief to help lead this “reform” effort. Furthermore, we believe the memorandum from Chief LaChasse does not provide
satisfactory answers, and is merely an attempt to justify what appears to be a lack of affirmative
action to address the matter.

!The BPOA respectfully requests that after you conduct your own independent analysis of these

very troubling circumstances that you take action, as the City Manager, in support of creating a
police department that is dedicated to reinforcing a culture which emphasizes the duty to
preserve and uphold the rights of all persons, a commitment towards teamwork and fairness, and one which embraces change, transparency, and accountability through internal and external oversight.

!!
!Sincerely,

The Burbank Police Officers’ Association
Board of Directors, on behalf of the Membership

!
!
!

4 of 4